Climate change adaptation frameworks: an evaluation of plans for coastal Suffolk, UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This paper asserts that three principal frameworks for climate change adaptation can be recognised in the literature: scenario-led (SL), vulnerability-led (VL) and decision-centric (DC) frameworks. A criterion is developed to differentiate these frameworks in recent adaptation projects. The criterion features six key hallmarks as follows: (1) use of climate model information; (2) analysis of metrics/units; (3) socio-economic knowledge; (4) stakeholder engagement; (5) adaptation of implementation mechanisms; (6) tier of adaptation implementation. The paper then tests the validity of this approach using adaptation projects on the Suffolk coast, UK. Fourteen adaptation plans were identified in an online survey. They were analysed in relation to the hallmarks outlined above and assigned to an adaptation framework. The results show that while some adaptation plans are primarily SL, VL or DC, the majority are hybrid, showing a mixture of DC/VL and DC/SL characteristics. Interestingly, the SL/VL combination is not observed, perhaps because the DC framework is intermediate and attempts to overcome weaknesses of both SL and VL approaches. The majority (57 %) of adaptation projects generated a risk assessment or advice notes. Further development of this type of framework analysis would allow better guidance on approaches for organisations when implementing climate change adaptation initiatives, and other similar proactive long-term planning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".